High-Stakes Shredding Standoff: Shasta County Counsel and Elections Chief Clint Curtis Clash as Weekend Destruction of 2024 Ballots Proceeds
Commercial document-destruction contractors prepare to shred thousands of voted ballots from the November 2024 general election under orders of County Counsel while emergency court challenges sit stalled in judicial limbo.
REDDING, California — The administrative crisis gripping Shasta County election operations reached a dramatic climax Saturday morning as commercial document-destruction contractors prepared to shred thousands of voted ballots from the November 2024 general election—proceeding under orders of County Counsel Joe Larmour while an emergency court challenge sits stalled in judicial limbo.
The confrontation outside the Shasta County Elections Department at 1643 Market Street in Redding follows two weeks of mounting chaos, including an on-site inspection by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a federal grand jury subpoena, sharp warnings of criminal liability from County Counsel, and a failed attempt by local election observers to secure an immediate temporary restraining order.
At the center of the dispute is appointed County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis, who sent document-destruction trucks away on two prior occasions in September, arguing that the sealed ballot cartons contain unsegregated administrative canvass logs subject to active California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests. Shasta County Counsel and the California Secretary of State, however, have countered that retaining the ballots past their 22-month statutory retention ceiling violates federal and state law, leading county administrators to override Curtis and schedule an unusual weekend shredding operation for 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, October 3.
The Loading Dock Standoff: Missing Logs and Criminal Warnings
Under Title 52, United States Code § 20701 and Section 17301 of the California Elections Code, election administrators are mandated to retain voted election materials from federal contests under strict seal for 22 months following certification. Once that preservation window elapses, the statutes require jurisdictions to recycle or incinerate the materials unless a formal election contest or court order is in effect. For the November 5, 2024, general election, that 22-month statutory floor expired on September 5, 2026.
An initial shredding run scheduled for September 11 with commercial contractor Hemsted Shredding was delayed after citizen activist Arne List filed an emergency petition in Shasta County Superior Court (List v. Clint Curtis, Case No. 26CV-0211712). Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna denied List’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order on September 17, clearing the way for disposal.
The standoff erupted on the morning of Wednesday, September 30, when a Hemsted mobile shredding unit arrived at the Market Street facility. As elections staff began unsealing the first 10 storage boxes, Curtis reported discovering unseparated administrative records—including central-count observer logs, machine batch tapes, physical room-access sheets, and tabulator transfer slips—stored directly inside seven of the ballot cartons.
The un-digitized records form the core of CPRA Request No. 26-1766, filed on September 4, 2026, by citizen election observer Kari Chilson. Chilson sought the December 3, 2024, canvass records following local allegations that former election administrators conducted unobserved tallying after observers were dismissed. Unlike voted ballots, public records and canvass audit trails carry independent retention mandates under California Government Code § 7920 and cannot be destroyed while a valid public records request remains unresolved.
According to investigative reporting by Shasta Unfiltered, Elections Office Executive Assistant Marjorie Andrews contacted the office of Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour at 8:19 a.m. to request an immediate on-site inspection. When Larmour indicated he could not immediately attend, Curtis turned the shredding truck away.
Twenty minutes later, County Counsel Larmour arrived at the Market Street office to demand the destruction proceed, sparking a hostile written exchange that Curtis immediately leaked to local media and broadcast outlets, including KRCR News Channel 7:
9:45 AM (Larmour to Curtis): Larmour warned Curtis that his "unilateral decision to send the shred truck away continues an already existing violation of law," citing 52 U.S.C. § 20701 and cautioning: "As you will see, this statute carries criminal sanctions of not more than $1,000 fine and not more than one year of imprisonment or both. I have continued to advise you to follow statute, and at this point you are out on your own; neither County Counsel nor the Board will be liable for your independent decisions in this matter."
11:06 AM (Curtis to Larmour): Curtis fired back, copying the Board of Supervisors and regional reporters: "Your email is a complete lie." Curtis argued that destroying the commingled cartons would constitute an illegal purge of active public records.
11:13 AM (Larmour to Curtis): Larmour asserted that Curtis’s release of legal correspondence waived attorney-client privilege, writing: "In addition your waiver of attorney client privilege which is held by the board and not you is also subject to criminal sanctions which I will discuss with the board."
11:30 AM (Curtis to Larmour): Curtis answered: "Threats are useful for my whistleblower complaint. The board should have fired you."
On Thursday, October 1, Curtis confirmed that the Elections Division of the California Secretary of State had provided formal guidance instructing the county to proceed with the destruction of the materials as packaged, without manual sorting. Curtis initially rescheduled the shredding for Friday, October 9.
However, late Thursday afternoon, the County Counsel’s office superseded Curtis's timeline, booking Hemsted Shredding for Saturday morning, October 3, at 8:00 a.m.—a date when the Elections Office and the shredding vendor do not ordinarily conduct public business.
Asked whether elections workers would inspect the boxes to preserve the requested canvass documents, Curtis stated in a text message published by Shasta Unfiltered:
"We are not going through the boxes. Larmour and the sos has directed us to shred the boxes knowing that there are documents that are presently under a pra and should be retained at court street."
Emergency Court Scramble and Judicial Continuance
The sudden acceleration of the shredding timeline set off an emergency legal scramble on Friday morning, October 2.
Attorney Alexander Haberbush of the Lex Rex Institute, representing CPRA requester Kari Chilson, filed an emergency ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause in Shasta County Superior Court, naming the County of Shasta and Clint Curtis as respondents. Haberbush argued that county officials had been served with written preservation notices on September 10, 28, and 29, and that executing a weekend shredding of commingled records constituted willful spoliation of public evidence.
However, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna declined to take up the ex parte application on Friday, citing calendar congestion, and continued the hearing to Tuesday morning, October 6.
Because County Counsel advanced the shredding operation to Saturday morning, Judge Hanna’s three-day continuance opened an administrative window that left the contested records completely unprotected by court injunction, clearing the contractor to proceed.
Padlocks, Bolt Cutters, and an FBI Evidence Seal
The clash over the 2024 general election records is unfolding against the backdrop of federal scrutiny into Curtis’s handling of the June 2, 2026, statewide primary election.
Curtis, who was appointed by the Board of Supervisors on a 3–2 vote in 2025 following the resignation of the prior registrar, was defeated in the June primary by former Assistant Registrar Joanna Francescut, who secured 58 percent of the vote. Curtis remains in office through January 2027 to administer the upcoming November 3 general election.
Following his defeat, Curtis alleged widespread ballot tampering, claiming that cast vote-by-mail ballots did not look or feel authentic and that thousands "smelled wrong." Curtis subsequently sealed the June 2026 primary ballots and November 2024 general election records inside a second-floor archive room, installed heavy commercial padlocks, and announced he had thrown away the keys. Curtis stated publicly that anyone seeking entry would need "a warrant and a bolt cutter," openly declaring he hoped the FBI or Department of Homeland Security would seize the ballots before county destruction dates arrived.
Federal law enforcement responded in mid-September. As reported by CalMatters and KQED News, FBI agents arrived at the Market Street elections facility with bolt cutters, clipped Curtis’s personal padlocks, inspected the ballot cartons, and installed a Department of Justice tamper-evident cable lock stamped with the word "SECURED" on the vault door.
When questioned about who may have orchestrated the alleged fraud, Curtis told CalMatters: "Who knows? Who cares? I don't try to get into who did or why (they) did, only if they did."
Concurrently, a federal grand jury empanelled by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento served Curtis with a subpoena on September 10, commanding him to appear in person on September 24 and produce over 100 cartons of June primary ballots. While federal prosecutors orally notified Curtis on September 21 that physical transport of the cartons was stayed, Curtis acknowledged he never received a written dismissal, and the federal grand jury inquest remains open.
Curtis's actions have extended into unorthodox administrative efforts. In September, Curtis confirmed to reporters that he had attempted to hire Tina Peters—the former Mesa County, Colorado clerk convicted of felony charges related to election system security breaches—to serve in his office. That plan collapsed after Peters declined and California U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff called for maximum oversight to prevent her employment.
Grand Jury Removal Demands and Internal Firewalls
The escalating friction has triggered coordinated campaigns to remove Curtis from public office under California Government Code § 3060 before his term concludes.
On September 9, 2026, the UCLA Voting Rights Project, joined by former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, submitted an official 20-page accusation demand to the Shasta County Civil Grand Jury seeking Curtis’s immediate judicial removal for willful misconduct. The petition cited Curtis’s physical sequestration of ballots and detailed findings from a 170-page independent investigation by Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP.
The Oppenheimer report sustained findings that Curtis:
Directed hostile, demeaning, and violent language at subordinate staff, including threats to have human resources drag an employee "out of their office by their hair" and statements about "spanking" workers;
Used official county work hours to make political campaign calls;
Retaliated against merit personnel who participated as witnesses in administrative investigations.
When asked by local reporters about the removal petition and Becerra's involvement, Curtis dismissed the effort, labeling the former Attorney General and current gubernatorial candidate a "little Hitler."
The Board of Supervisors formally censured Curtis in a 3–1 vote on August 11, 2026. Following the censure, the County Counsel’s office instituted strict internal firewalls: all security video and administrative records provided to Curtis must have merit employee faces and names redacted to protect staff from unsubstantiated public allegations.
Curtis is also entangled in civil litigation. Incoming Registrar-elect Joanna Francescut has filed a civil wrongful termination and retaliation suit against Curtis and the County in Shasta County Superior Court. Meanwhile, investigative reporting by North State Breakdown revealed text messages showing Curtis coordinated directly with activist Arne List on September 8 to facilitate List's lawsuit against the Elections Office in an effort to block the ballot shredding.
County Board Tightens Control as Midterm Crunch Looms
Governance strains spilled into the Board of Supervisors' regular meeting on Tuesday, September 29.
The Board approved Item C3, an amendment quadrupling the county’s contract ceiling with logistics firm Humboldt Moving & Storage from $50,000 to $225,000 to guarantee the delivery of voting tabulators, voting booths, and physical precinct supplies for the upcoming election.
Operationally, the November 3, 2026, general election will proceed under standard California election laws. Although Shasta County voters approved Measure B in June—a charter initiative mandating single-day in-person voting, photo identification, and a 100 percent hand tally—the measure was struck down by the California Department of Justice and Secretary of State in Weber & Bonta v. County of Shasta. The Third District Court of Appeal issued a stay prohibiting Measure B’s enforcement, and Curtis entered into a formal stipulation agreeing not to defend the measure in court.
Consequently, Shasta County will utilize certified electronic tabulators and will begin mailing official vote-by-mail ballots to all registered voters on Monday, October 5.
Community Fracture and the Erosion of Public Confidence
The rapid-fire controversies have deepened political divisions across the North State, creating fierce community polarization between Curtis’s supporters and critics.
During public comment sessions and on social media forums, supporters like resident Bruce Russell have defended Curtis, arguing that his actions have uncovered systemic institutional flaws and brought long-overdue transparency to local government. Conversely, critics and voting rights advocates, such as resident Curtis Chipley, argue that the Registrar's unverified fraud claims and disregard for retention laws have destabilized local governance and exposed the county to immense civil liability.
Speaking Friday evening with North State Public Radio, District 4 Supervisor Matt Plummer warned that the relentless administrative conflict risks poisoning public faith in the electoral process just one month before voters cast their ballots:
"I get emails every week from people saying they're concerned about the November election, and have less confidence in it than they ever have," Plummer said, reiterating that Curtis's refusal to carry out statutory duties "is solely his decision and is not supported or condoned by the County of Shasta."
With the shredding truck staged on Market Street, the civil grand jury weighing removal demands, and the October 6 Superior Court hearing pending, Shasta County faces an unprecedented test of its electoral and institutional integrity.
